From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu>
Cc: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, herbert@gondor.apana.org.au,
linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for i486+
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 08:59:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070610135956.GS11115@waste.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <466B46D5.1020004@cs.cmu.edu>
On Sat, Jun 09, 2007 at 08:33:25PM -0400, Benjamin Gilbert wrote:
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >Matt Mackall wrote:
> >>Have you benchmarked this against lib/sha1.c? Please post the results.
> >>Until then, I'm frankly skeptical that your unrolled version is faster
> >>because when I introduced lib/sha1.c the rolled version therein won by
> >>a significant margin and had 1/10th the cache footprint.
>
> See the benchmark tables in patch 0 at the head of this thread.
> Performance improved by at least 25% in every test, and 40-60% was more
> common for the 32-bit version (on a Pentium IV).
>
> It's not just the loop unrolling; it's the register allocation and
> spilling. For comparison, I built SHATransform() from the
> drivers/char/random.c in 2.6.11, using gcc 3.3.5 with -O2 and
> SHA_CODE_SIZE == 3 (i.e., fully unrolled); I'm guessing this is pretty
> close to what you tested back then. The resulting code is 49% MOV
> instructions, and 80% of *those* involve memory. gcc4 is somewhat
> better, but it still spills a whole lot, both for the 2.6.11 unrolled
> code and for the current lib/sha1.c.
Wait, your benchmark is comparing against the unrolled code?
> In contrast, the assembly implementation in this patch only has to go to
> memory for data and workspace (with one small exception in the F3
> rounds), and the workspace has a fifth of the cache footprint of the
> default implementation.
How big is the -code- footprint?
Earlier you wrote:
> On the aforementioned Pentium IV, /dev/urandom throughput goes from
> 3.7 MB/s to 5.6 MB/s with the patches; on the Core 2, it increases
> from 5.5 MB/s to 8.1 MB/s.
Whoa. We've regressed something horrible here:
http://groups.google.com/group/linux.kernel/msg/fba056363c99d4f9?dmode=source&hl=en
In 2003, I was getting 17MB/s out of my Athlon. Now I'm getting 2.7MB/s.
Were your tests with or without the latest /dev/urandom fixes? This
one in particular:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-2.6.21.y.git;a=commitdiff;h=374f167dfb97c1785515a0c41e32a66b414859a8
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-06-10 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-06-08 21:42 [PATCH 0/3] Add optimized SHA-1 implementations for x86 and x86_64 Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-08 21:42 ` [PATCH 1/3] [CRYPTO] Move sha_init() into cryptohash.h Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-08 21:42 ` [PATCH 2/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for i486+ Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-09 7:32 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-06-10 1:15 ` Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-11 19:47 ` Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-11 19:50 ` [PATCH] " Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-11 19:52 ` [PATCH] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for x86_64 Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-09 20:11 ` [PATCH 2/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for i486+ Matt Mackall
2007-06-09 20:23 ` Jeff Garzik
2007-06-09 21:34 ` Matt Mackall
2007-06-10 0:33 ` Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-10 13:59 ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2007-06-10 16:47 ` Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-10 17:33 ` Matt Mackall
2007-06-11 17:39 ` Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-11 12:04 ` Andi Kleen
2007-06-08 21:42 ` [PATCH 3/3] [CRYPTO] Add optimized SHA-1 implementation for x86_64 Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-11 12:01 ` Andi Kleen
2007-06-11 19:45 ` Benjamin Gilbert
2007-06-11 20:30 ` [PATCH 0/3] Add optimized SHA-1 implementations for x86 and x86_64 Adrian Bunk
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070610135956.GS11115@waste.org \
--to=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bgilbert@cs.cmu.edu \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=jeff@garzik.org \
--cc=linux-crypto@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).